Is husband liable for wife's STD?

Hey, here is a positive outcome of my trouble with baron. I have ran into this article:

http://www.poz.com/articles/1056_7014.shtml

" Hundreds of people living with HIV have been jailed in the past ten years for acts as minor as spitting on someone and as serious as rape. The most extreme prosecutions (especially those involving willful acts) grab national headlines and rile communities. "

Oh, I apologize, that was just ANOTHER evidence to prove Baron wrong, I meant this case:

"Carriker’s HIV status would, however, become of great concern to Atlanta-area law enforcement when McDaniel had a change of heart and Carriker was charged with “felony reckless conduct” for those oral encounters as well as for having had anal sex with two other men (one with a condom, the other without) without first telling them he had HIV. Under Georgia law, each such charge carries up to ten years in jail."
 
I apologize, Syzygys, I seriously did not know that such AIDS laws had ever been past in the US. I know several times it's been discussed, argued about and considered, but... But I apologize, I really didn't know. I'm glad some states have finally seen the light.

Baron Max
 
OK, no problem. I am seldom wrong, but if I am I don't hesitate to say so...
 
Syzygys said:
So what's your point? Obviously he DIDN't tell the wife, thus the case....
Click to expand...
My point is that infidelity is not the issue here. Only the STD is. If everything about this case was the same except he got infected before they were married, she'd have the same case legally speaking. He'd be no more or less negligent.

By the way neglience exists in this case even if he didn't know. That is the definition of neglience. If your car's tires are too old and you get a flat tire and kill somebody, you are neglient, because you should keep your car maintained... It doesn't matter if you knew or didn't know about the condition of the tires...
Click to expand...
Tires always fail eventually, whereas sex does not necessarily lead to an STD. He is not negligent simply for having sex with someone else. The story is clear that the potential liability in their state hinges on the STD alone. He must have either known about it or "should have known". If he admits to having unprotected sex was with a hooker, I'd say he should have known the risk of contracting an STD is high. Otherwise I think it would be tough to show that.

If I was on that jury, I'd want to see proof that they were both free of that STD when they got married. The CDC says that most adult women have it, and it can remain dormant. Then she may have had it when they got married, and given it to him.
 
zanket said:
My point is that infidelity is not the issue here. Only the STD is.
Click to expand...

Well, infidelity led to divorce, the STD led to the lawsuit. Without STD there would have been only divorce...

Tires always fail eventually,
Click to expand...

Not if you replace them IN TIME. (we are not talking here about a nail in the tire but general wear)

whereas sex does not necessarily lead to an STD.
Click to expand...

But if you stay faithful, you SURE don't get STD. The same with tire, if you keep replacing them after X miles, you will avoid failure by general wear.

He is not negligent simply for having sex with someone else.
Click to expand...

I could argue he was. He neglected his marriage. But that is beside the point.

The story is clear that the potential liability in their state hinges on the STD alone. He must have either known about it or "should have known".
Click to expand...

So what are we arguing about? Instead of "should have know" I would say "shouldn't have done".
In either case he was negligent and his negligence caused bodily harm to the wife. Thus she deserves compensation.

Then she may have had it when they got married, and given it to him.
Click to expand...

You are pushing it there... making the victim the sinner... :)
 
Syzygys said:
Hey, here is a positive outcome of my trouble with baron. I have ran into this article:....
Oh, I apologize, that was just ANOTHER evidence to prove Baron wrong, I meant this case:...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Baron Max
No, he can't be charged with murder! Certainly not in the USA.

Where are you from that the law can charge them with murder??? I think it should be that way in the USA, but it ain't yet.

Baron Max

********

Sorry, Sysygys, but in none of those cases was anyone charged with ...MURDER OR ATTEMPTED MURDER.... They were charged with various things like "felonious assault" or "reckless endangerment".

But NOT murder ...as I orginally posted, and as I originally thought. But don't get me wrong, I'm more that happy with the results of your searches and posted links. I hadn't even thought that the felonious assault charges were being used in such cases.

Baron Max
 
I love you man, but this is getting tedious. This time I used these searchwords:

"attempted murder hiv positive spit"

Guess what I got! This is a legal document, so you should be VERY statisfied:

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/weeks.v.state.txt


"At the time of the offense, appellant had tested positive for the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus which causes acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS). He was convicted of attempted murder by spitting on a prison
guard. "

CONVICTED!!!! Not just charged, but CONVICTED!!!

Can we put to rest finally this matter?
 
Here is an interesting research from France. The question was:

Should doctors breach confidentiality when they recognize that one spouse has STD to save the other one?

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/7/414

"Conclusions: Most people in France are influenced by situational factors when deciding if a physician should breach confidentiality to protect the spouse of a patient infected with STD."
 
Again, Syzygys, I must apologize. But those earlier links were not about murder or attempted murder, so I....?

thanks for the links and the info.

and yes, we can put this to rest. Thanks for the links,

Baron Max
 
Syzygys said:
But if you stay faithful, you SURE don't get STD. The same with tire, if you keep replacing them after X miles, you will avoid failure by general wear.
Click to expand...
Being unfaithful is legal, whereas driving with worn tires is illegal. Then infidelity is irrelevant in this case, whereas failure to replace worn tires can be relevant to a car accident. Legal activity that leads to harm is not legally relevant. Otherwise people would be sued for things like having a tree that someone crashed into ("If the tree wasn't there, I wouldn't have hit it!").

So what are we arguing about? Instead of "should have know" I would say "shouldn't have done".
Click to expand...
The difference between what I say and what you say is the difference between what the law references (the STD) and what it does not reference (infidelity). If you were on that jury, you'd be reading something into the law that is not there.

In either case he was negligent and his negligence caused bodily harm to the wife. Thus she deserves compensation.
Click to expand...
If she can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he gave her the STD and that he either knew he had it or should have known. The law defines what is negligence. The jurors should not make their own determination about that.

You are pushing it there... making the victim the sinner... :)
Click to expand...
Do you think anyone who sues is automatically a victim? She doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is a victim by simply accusing someone. Given that 50% of women have this STD by their wedding day and it can remain dormant, the jury should at least see proof that she didn't have it then. It's bad enough for her that she can't prove that she wasn't unfaithful herself.
 
We are still not improving here...

zanket said:
what the law references (the STD) and what it does not reference (infidelity). If you were on that jury, you'd be reading something into the law that is not there.
Click to expand...

Please, be my guest:

Criminal negligence:To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk.

etc,etc, from Wikipedia

If she can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he gave her the STD
Click to expand...

Man, you are one tough costumer. What is the mathematical chance of her having a dormant STD that became active right after her husband had an affair??? :)

The law defines what is negligence.
Click to expand...

See above. It fits.


She doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is a victim by simply accusing someone.
Click to expand...

The husband doesn't argue the passing of the STD. He just argues the liability of it.

As you say given that 40% of Americans have HP virus dormant or active, husband was negligent, because with such a high % it was quite likely that he would get infected.

Now stop accusing the victim, and read the law...
 
Syzygys said:
Criminal negligence:...
Click to expand...
That all applies to the STD, which the law references. It does not apply to the infidelity, a legal activity the law does not mention.

What is the mathematical chance of her having a dormant STD that became active right after her husband had an affair???
Click to expand...
The article makes no mention of the time between the affair and her medical problems. It could have been a decade for all we know.

See above. It fits.
Click to expand...
I meant that the law defines what activities can possibly involve negligence. For example, not maintaining your car can be negligent, whereas merely driving a car is not. If you claim that someone is negligent for driving their car, leading to you rear-ending them, there's no law that supports you. Infidelity is not negligent behavior. Knowingly having an STD and not telling a sex partner is negligent, in CA at least.

The husband doesn't argue the passing of the STD. He just argues the liability of it.
Click to expand...
He argues that he didn't know he had it. Then he would not know for sure whether he gave it to her. Even if he agrees that he likely got it via the affair, he may not be liable according to the article.

As you say given that 40% of Americans have HP virus dormant or active, husband was negligent, because with such a high % it was quite likely that he would get infected.
Click to expand...
If 40% of Americans have it, and 80% of women her age have it, then obviously it's innocuous for the vast majority of people. If she got a cold from him and it triggered a crippling illness in her, should he be found negligent since he knew that the risk of getting a cold by leaving the house is significant, yet he still left the house? I think not.

Now stop accusing the victim, and read the law...
Click to expand...
If you know the law, then you know that she's a victim only after she's swayed the jury. The jury is still out on her case. If they are reasonable, they will deny her claim if she cannot prove that he gave her the STD, especially since this one is so common.
 
Syzygys said:
First the story:

http://keyetv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_324151847.html

In short: Estranged husband is being sued because he cheated on wife and gave her STD. He didn't know he had it...

Your comment....
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. He deliberately cheated right? So he knew he was risking her life and his, and he has a responsibility and was irresponsible. He should be punished as if he attempted to kill her, because AIDS is deadly.
 
zanket said:
That all applies to the STD, which the law references. It does not apply to the infidelity, a legal activity the law does not mention.


The article makes no mention of the time between the affair and her medical problems. It could have been a decade for all we know.


I meant that the law defines what activities can possibly involve negligence. For example, not maintaining your car can be negligent, whereas merely driving a car is not. If you claim that someone is negligent for driving their car, leading to you rear-ending them, there's no law that supports you. Infidelity is not negligent behavior. Knowingly having an STD and not telling a sex partner is negligent, in CA at least.


He argues that he didn't know he had it. Then he would not know for sure whether he gave it to her. Even if he agrees that he likely got it via the affair, he may not be liable according to the article.


If 40% of Americans have it, and 80% of women her age have it, then obviously it's innocuous for the vast majority of people. If she got a cold from him and it triggered a crippling illness in her, should he be found negligent since he knew that the risk of getting a cold by leaving the house is significant, yet he still left the house? I think not.


If you know the law, then you know that she's a victim only after she's swayed the jury. The jury is still out on her case. If they are reasonable, they will deny her claim if she cannot prove that he gave her the STD, especially since this one is so common.
Click to expand...


You are correct about the law, but it's still morally wrong, evil in fact, to give someone an STD.
 
Syzygys said:
Well, infidelity led to divorce, the STD led to the lawsuit. Without STD there would have been only divorce...



Not if you replace them IN TIME. (we are not talking here about a nail in the tire but general wear)



But if you stay faithful, you SURE don't get STD. The same with tire, if you keep replacing them after X miles, you will avoid failure by general wear.



I could argue he was. He neglected his marriage. But that is beside the point.



So what are we arguing about? Instead of "should have know" I would say "shouldn't have done".
In either case he was negligent and his negligence caused bodily harm to the wife. Thus she deserves compensation.



You are pushing it there... making the victim the sinner... :)
Click to expand...



This is why it's not a good idea to marry a cheater. They spread STDs.
 
TimeTraveler said:
You are correct about the law, but it's still morally wrong, evil in fact, to give someone an STD.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. We don't know if he gave the STD to her or the other way around. She may have had an affair herself and got the STD that way, or had it when she got married. The facts of the case in the article do not say. That's why the jury needs proof from her that she got the STD from him, before they award her a pile of his money. She needs to prove her case that she brought to the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top